Today, in contrast to the early 1990s, many more German parliamentarians at the national, regional and European levels have a migratory background. In 2008, 65 such MPs could be identified across these political levels, and there are many more at the local level. While a majority of parliamentarians with a migratory background are first-generation immigrants, successive generations are also present in increasing numbers across the various parliamentary levels. There is empirical evidence for a party-specific political opportunity structure. Parties on the political left, the Social Democrats, the Greens and the socialists (Linke) have higher shares of politicians with a migratory background than the center-right parties, the Christian Democrats, the Christian Social Union and the Liberal Party (FDP). The difference between the two political camps is smaller on the local level (in the 25 biggest cities) and in the European Parliament, but there are level-specific intervening factors. The jurisdictional power and political competitiveness at a given level of elected office likely has some impact on a party’s willingness to include candidates with a non-German background. Eligibility is also clearly an intervening factor. Not only German citizens, but all EU citizens are eligible to run in local and EP elections, and this level-specific enlargement of the group of potential candidates has effects: there are more politicians originating from other EU countries than are coming from outside the EU. Where center-right parties, especially, are otherwised largely closed to migrant origin MPs, this factor brings a degree of openness. When the narrower definition of visible minorities is applied, the share of MPs with a migratory background in the parliamentary groups of the center-right parties is much smaller than in the groups of the parties on the political left. Similarly, the level of education (an indicator of the degree of structural assimilation) is higher among the respective parliamentarians in the center-right parties compared to those in left-wing parties. Therefore, we are not only more likely to find parliamentarians with a migratory background on the political left; we are also more likely to find that they have a more typical migratory background, compared to those on the center-right. Analyses of the parliamentary activities of MPs with a migratory background showed that there is hardly any policy area in which they are not active. However, there is a tendency to focus on migration and migration-related issues. And, as is shown at least in the findings for the current legislative period in the Bundestag, the migration background is reflected in the topics and contents of individual written questions. Noticeable exceptions from this pattern are MPs in a parliamentary position role. They are less likely to focus on migration issues either through committee work or, especially, through individual questions. While migration-related issues may still play a role in their parliamentary work, activities are normally focused on other issues. In the case of committee or subcommittee leaders in the Bundestag, it is primarily the various topics that relate to their committee responsibilities which are are channelled into their speech-making and other parliamentary activities. Nevertheless, interviews and participatory observations made clear that most MPs with a migratory background, even if they do not focus on migration issues, are now and then dealing with migration-related issues, and do perceive themselves as bridge-builders between the indigenous population and the minority or minorities of a migratory background. Finally, this chapter has touched on the question of what or whom politicians with a migratory background seek to represent. This analysis was based on data from the German Candidate Study 2005, and thus reflects the views of candidates – only a portion of whom might become MPs. National-level candidates with a migratory background gave policy responsiveness more weight than the native candidates, while there was no significant difference between these two groups pertaining to service responsiveness. These results can be interpreted to indicate that, among migrant origin candidates, it is policy issues that receive the greatest emphasis, while there is no difference between migrant and non-migrant origin candidates in their emphasis on helping individual voters or citizens in the course of political representation. Combined with the result that group representation matters more to the migrant background than to the native candidates, this suggests that politicians with a migratory background do seek to do more for ‘their’ group, but address this through a distinct policy focus, rather than through helping individuals with everyday problems potentially caused by their different background.